beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlin Rogers <>
Subject Re: Move the NetUI generic Factory in to the utils or core package?
Date Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:45:00 GMT
Sure, good idea. So the ServletContainerAdapter interface would
have a new method getFactory( Class factoryClass  ) where
Factory.class.isAssignableFrom( factoryClass ) must be true?

In my case, URLTemplatesFactory would need to extend Factory
and would implement the init() method where I'd use the
static method Factory.getFactory(). I noted that the Factory 
class implementation takes a PageflowFactory object 
(which extends an xmlbeans XmlObject) as an argument to 
the static getFactory() method containing a String
for the class name of the factory... and then uses
DiscoveryUtils to get a class loader. Not sure this jibes 
with what you were asking for.

For a generic Factory from the container adapter, I'm not sure 
we'd always have an XmlObject to pass in. I'm now a little
confused as to how best to use the Factory class. Rich,
do you have more thoughts on this?


On 6/24/05, Rich Feit <> wrote:
> Hi Carlin,
> This makes sense to me.  As to getting a Factory from the
> ServletContainerAdapter, would it be possible to have the method
> signature take a base Class instead of String?  Seems like we can avoid
> finding a classloader and loading the class each time, and in most cases
> we'd be passing a statically-known Class.
> Rich
> Carlin Rogers wrote:
> >All,
> >
> >I'm implementing a way to get a URLTemplateFactory from the
> >ServletContainerAdapter. However, I'm not sure a specific
> >method like this follows with the other methods that a
> >ServletContainerAdapter implementation provides.
> >
> >One thought would be I'd like to have a generic way to get
> >a Factory from the the ServletContainerAdapter given a
> >class name.
> >
> >We already do this using class names from the config file.
> >The generic Factory class is in the pageflow package.
> >It would be great to move this to the utils or core package
> >of NetUI. Then I could also add this to the ServletContainerAdapter.
> >I would also move the FactoryConfig class as well as we
> >already have other Config support in utils.
> >
> >I don't think Factory or FactoryConfig are used by or
> >exposed to beehive users. It should be a safe move to make.
> >
> >Opinions or concerns? Or other ideas for providing a generic
> >way to create a Factory from a container specific implementation?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Carlin
> >
> >
> >

View raw message